Population pharmacokinetics of tanezumab in phase 3 clinical trials for osteoarthritis pain

AimsThe aims were to 1) develop the pharmacokinetics model to describe and predict observed tanezumab concentrations over time, 2) test possible covariate parameter relationships that could influence clearance and distribution and 3) assess the impact of fixed dosing vs. a dosing regimen adjusted by body weight.MethodsIndividual concentration–time data were determined from 1608 patients in four phase 3 studies conducted to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous tanezumab. Patients received two or three intravenous doses (2.5, 5 or 10 mg) every 8 weeks. Blood samples for assessment of tanezumab PK were collected at baseline, 1 h post‐dose and at weeks 4, 8, 16 and 24 (or early termination) in all studies. Blood samples were collected at week 32 in two studies. Plasma samples were analyzed using a sensitive, specific, validated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsA two compartment model with parallel linear and non‐linear elimination processes adequately described the data. Population estimates for clearance (CL), central volume (V ₁), peripheral volume (V ₂), inter‐compartmental clearance, maximum elimination capacity (VM) and concentration at half‐maximum elimination capacity were 0.135 l day^–1, 2.71 l, 1.98 l, 0.371 l day^–1, 8.03 μg day^–1 and 27.7 ng ml^–1, respectively. Inter‐individual variability (IIV) was included on CL, V ₁, V ₂ and VM. A mixture model accounted for the distribution of residual error. While gender, dose and creatinine clearance were significant covariates, only body weight as a covariate of CL, V ₁ and V ₂ significantly reduced IIV.ConclusionsThe small increase in variability associated with fixed dosing is consistent with other monoclonal antibodies and does not change risk : benefit.     

Severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with Guillain-Barré syndrome: A case report

BACKGROUNDGuillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare disorder that typically presents with ascending weakness, pain, paraesthesias, and numbness, which mimic the findings in lumbar spinal stenosis. Here, we report a case of severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with GBS.CASE SUMMARYA 70-year-old man with a history of lumbar spinal stenosis presented to our emergency department with severe lower back pain and lower extremity numbness. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the diagnosis of severe lumbar spinal stenosis. However, his symptoms did not improve postoperatively and he developed dysphagia and upper extremity numbness. An electromyogram was performed. Based on his symptoms, physical examination, and electromyogram, he was diagnosed with GBS. After 5 d of intravenous immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg/d for 5 d) therapy, he gained 4/5 of strength in his upper and lower extremities and denied paraesthesias. He had regained 5/5 of strength in his extremities when he was discharged and had no symptoms during follow-up.CONCLUSIONGBS should be considered in the differential diagnosis of spinal disorder, even though magnetic resonance imaging shows severe lumbar spinal stenosis. This case highlights the importance of a careful diagnosis when a patient has a history of a disease and comes to the hospital with the same or similar symptoms.     

小儿腹股沟斜疝日间手术与专科住院手术的卫生经济学评价

目的对小儿日间手术模式和专科住院手术模式的卫生经济学进行评价,为小儿腹股沟斜疝手术的优选和决策提供参照依据。方法收集2016年6月至2017年7月间所有在重庆医科大学附属儿童医院治疗且符合纳入标准的单侧腹股沟斜疝患儿的临床资料,其中日间手术患儿324例(日间组),专科住院手术患儿65例(专科组)。比较两种手术模式下的患儿一般资料、治疗指标、容错情况、术后需要留院处理的并发症发生率、复发率、院内的感染等卫生效果指标;比较两种模式的HCAHPS优化星表满意度、住院时间、住院费用等卫生经济学指标。统计分析两种模式的成本-效果:治疗效果权重W、治疗效果指数(EI)、成本-效果比(CER)。结果日间外科组和专科组在性别、区域方面的差异无统计学意义,专科组年龄分布更广。日间组与专科组占用床位时间分别为(23.17±0.49)h和(112.06±19.75)h,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01);两组的医疗费用分别为(3372±430)元和(6063±2104)元,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。两组麻醉分级ASA比例的差异具有统计学意义,两组术后并发症发生率的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。日间组与专科组治疗EI分别为0.98和1.02,CER分别为3305和6184,日间组经济学效益较大。结论日间手术的成本-效果优于专科住院手术模式,患儿满意度和术后复发率与专科住院模式的差异无统计学意义,推荐符合日间手术指征的患儿采用该模式。